Has the quality of reporting in periodontology changed in 14 years? A systematic review

Leow, Natalie; Hussain, Zahra; Petrie, Aviva; Donos, Nikolaos; Needleman, Ian

doi:10.1111/jcpe.12572

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In recent years, there were some studies on the reporting quality of periodontology RCTs. In 2016, Leow NM compared the reporting quality of periodontology RCTs with the RCTs 14 years ago and showed us that the reporting quality had improved but not yet optimal ( 7 ). Satish Kumar assessed the reporting quality of periodontal RCT abstracts published in 2012 and found that substantial effort is needed to improve the reporting quality ( 8 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality assessment of randomized controlled trial abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease from the abstracts published in dental Science Citation Indexed journals in the last ten years

Xie¹,

Qin²,

Gu³

et al. 2020

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence and are likely to influence clinical decision-making. This study evaluated the reporting quality of RCT abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease and assessed the associated factors. Material and Methods The Pubmed database was searched for periodontal RCTs published in Science Citation Indexed (SCI) dental journals from 2010/01/01 to 2019/07/17. Information was extracted from the abstracts according to a modified Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guideline checklist. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistical analysis and the statistical associations were examined using the linear regression analysis ( P <0.05). Results This study retrieved 1715 articles and 249 of them were finally included. The average overall CONSORT score was 15.6 ± 3.4, which represented 40.9% (±0.6) of CONSORT criteria filling. The reporting rate of some items (trial design, numbers analyzed, confidence intervals, intention-to-treat analysis or per-protocol analysis, harms, registration) was less than 30%. The adequate reporting rate of some items (participants, randomization, numbers analyzed, confidence intervals, intention-to-treat analysis or per protocol analysis) was no more than 4%. None of the abstracts reported funding. According to the multivariable linear regression results, number of authors ( P =0.030), word count ( P <0.001), continent ( P =0.003), structured format ( P <0.001), type of periodontal disease ( P <0.001) and international collaboration ( P =0.023) have a significant association with reporting quality. Conclusions The quality of RCT abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease in SCI dental journals remained suboptimal. More efforts should be made to improve RCT abstracts reporting quality. Key words: Abstracts, RCT, drug therapy, periodontal disease, CONSORT, reporting quality assessment.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality assessment of randomized controlled trial abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease from the abstracts published in dental Science Citation Indexed journals in the last ten years

Xie¹,

Qin²,

Gu³

et al. 2020

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Past and future trends and/or expectations may be evaluated by different settings including questionnaires, consensus conferences and/or bibliometric research [16]. Bibliometric research focuses on a descriptive analysis of publications and received increasing attention in recent years [29,30]. Different aspects relevant for understanding research developments in the past, future trends, geographic origin of the authors, study design and quality, number and nature of measured outcomes, factors influencing diagnosis or the most cited articles in periodontology were the objectives of recent bibliometric studies [29][30][31][32].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Traditional or regenerative periodontal surgery?—a comparison of the publications between two periodontal journals over time

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They concluded that quality of RCTs in periodontology frequently did not meet recommended standards. A follow-up systematic review by the same group (Leow et al 2016) showed that dramatic improvements had occurred over 14 years in the aspects of randomization, allocation concealment and masking. In agreement with the present study, the aspect with the least adherence to required reporting standards was allocation concealment (Leow et al 2016).…”

Section: Ta B L Ementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A follow-up systematic review by the same group (Leow et al 2016) showed that dramatic improvements had occurred over 14 years in the aspects of randomization, allocation concealment and masking. In agreement with the present study, the aspect with the least adherence to required reporting standards was allocation concealment (Leow et al 2016). Publications in journals with higher IF had lower overall RoB scores and better compliance with "primary outcome" reporting, compared with papers published in lower IF journals.…”

Section: Ta B L Ementioning

confidence: 99%

Study design and primary outcome in randomized controlled trials in periodontology. A systematic review

Alshamsi

Mehta

Nibali

2021

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim The aim of this review is to assess study design and risk of bias related to primary outcome in recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in periodontology. Method An electronic (Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane library) and a manual search were completed to detect RCTs in humans, with an outcome in the field of periodontology and published in English from January 2018 up to March 2020. Results Data extraction of 318 publications meeting the inclusion criteria was performed by two reviewers. Most studies adopted a parallel‐group superiority design in a university setting. Overall, 54% of papers reported the primary outcome and relative sample size calculation, while only 37% also included reproducibility estimates relative to the primary outcome. Papers published in journals with higher impact factors had better compliance with primary outcome reporting and lower overall risk of bias scores. Conclusion Improvements in the quality of RCTs in periodontology are still needed. The importance of defining a clinically relevant study primary outcome and building the study around it needs to be emphasized. Furthermore, RCTs in periodontology could consider, when appropriate, some of the study design options which facilitate application of the principles of personalized medicine.

show abstract

Has the quality of reporting in periodontology changed in 14 years? A systematic review

Abstract: Substantial improvements have occurred. Attention is required for statistical analysis of patient losses and masking. CONSORT-NPE aspects were poorly reported.

Cited by 10 publications

References 25 publications

Quality assessment of randomized controlled trial abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease from the abstracts published in dental Science Citation Indexed journals in the last ten years

Quality assessment of randomized controlled trial abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease from the abstracts published in dental Science Citation Indexed journals in the last ten years

Traditional or regenerative periodontal surgery?—a comparison of the publications between two periodontal journals over time

Study design and primary outcome in randomized controlled trials in periodontology. A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About